LAWS(GAU)-2008-3-32

MONOWAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On March 11, 2008
MONOWAR HUSSAIN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

(2.) The present appellants, as petitioners in WP(C) No. 3477/2007, had put to challenge the selection of 56 persons, as Junior Assistants, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, their case being, in brief, thus: The advertisement, dated 14.03.2007, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, inviting applications for filling up 47 vacant posts of Junior Assistant was not in accordance with law inasmuch as there was no adequate publicity of the advertisement issued by the authorities concerned. The second ground of challenge to the selection process was that the selection process was not fair inasmuch as there was mass copying by the candidates. The third ground of attack to the said selection process was that out of the three sub-divisions of the district of Dhubri, candidates from one sub-division got selected. The selection of the said 56 Junior Assistants had also been challenged by way of a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 3646/2007. Apart from these grounds, which the present appellants had taken in their writ petition for the purpose of sustaining their challenge to the said selection process, the sole petitioner, in WP(C) No. 3646/2007, had also challenged the ultimate selection of the said 56 candidates on the ground that the number of the candidates selected was larger than the number for which the advertisement had been published, for, the advertisement was for filling up of 47 vacant posts, whereas selection was, ultimately, made to fill up 56 posts.

(3.) By judgment and order, dated 14.02.2008, aforementioned, both the said writ petitions were dismissed. As far as the sole petitioner in WP(C) No. 3646/2007 is concerned, he has not filed any appeal. This appeal has, thus, been preferred by the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 3477/2007.